The presentation at EDU-CARNIVAL 2014 - the 6th International conference for school leaders, IIT DELHI.

1. School Leadership Development
Program: Curriculum

2. Summary
• School Change Possible if Headmasters (HM) Leverage their Position as School Leader to Impact Learning
• Transformational HM Leadership Requires Capacity Building on 4 Levels
• Integrated Curriculum of School Leadership Development Program (SLDP) Offers Holistic, Systematic
Training for School Change
• Personal Leadership Lays Foundation for Systemic Change through Individual Change
 GA1: HM Creates Stimulating Environment through Assembly, Bal Sabha, Sports, Library
 GA2: HM Reflects on Actions to Improve School Processes, Student Learning Outcomes and Stakeholder Engagement
 GA3: HM Systematises Administrative Work to Increase Involvement in Student Learning
• Instructional Leadership Improves Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) through Classroom Practices
 GA4: HM uses activity based instructional practice in Maths & Language for classes 1 & 2
 GA5: HM establishes SLO based assessment
 GA6: HM creates SLO based lesson plans & review practice
 GA7: HM creates conducive democratic, child centric classroom environment
 GA8: HM Coaches Staff Through Demonstration Of Own Instructional Practices
 GA9: HM Coaches Staff through Regular Observation, Review & Feedback
 GA10: HM Helps Staff in Designing Data-Based Instructional Practices based on SLO
 GA11: HM Facilitates Creation of Learning Community among Teachers
• Organizational Leadership Ensures Collective Ownership for School Development
 GA12: HM Facilitates Staff Meeting for Collective Problem Solving, Decision Making & Planning
 GA13: HM Instates Parameters for Performance for Teachers w.r.t Evaluation and Instructional practices
 GA14: HM facilitates Collective Visioning & creating of School Development Plan (SDP) With staff
• Social Leadership Aims for Sustainable Change by Involving all Stakeholders
 GA15: HM builds Continuous Engagement with Parent Community
 GA16: HM Facilitates Regular Parent Meetings for All Classes through Teachers
 GA17: HM facilitates Regular School Management Committee (SMC) meetings with Members Participation

3. School Change is Possible if HMs Leverage their
Position as School Leader to Impact Learning
HMs at the centre of a web of relationships that
enable them to influence change:
• Within the school, HMs:
 Have the authority and ability to significantly
influence change within the school environment.
 Can influence learning outcomes; can articulate
vision for school, plan strategically and take
decisions for better learning outcomes.
• In the larger education system:
 Recognised leaders within school community
 Link between schools and the larger system
 Pipeline for new administrators.
• Key Players in implementing National
Curriculum Framework and Right To Education
 Can create positive learning environment,
implement Comprehensive Continuous
Evaluation (CCE), reduce drop-outs, etc.
 Can collaborate with community and School
Management Committee (SMC) to create and
implement a comprehensive School
Development Plan (SDP)
Envisioning Headmasters as Key Players in School
Reform
• Currently
 Most HMs motivated by credibility/security of the
job; struggling without identity as a school leader
 HM reduced to administrator- Time consumed by
Mid-day Meal, reports, Census, election duty.
 HM nominated based on seniority; no support or
assessment of leadership skills
 No performance assessment , low accountability
• SLDP Aims to
 Build intrinsically motivated HMs to improve the
functioning of their schools who introduce take
action within their sphere of influence to positively
impact quality of education
 Ensure HMs prioritize the fundamentals of
education (Student Learning )
 Facilitate a shift towards an internal local of control,
proactive problem solving and planning.

4. Transformational HM Leadership Requires
Capacity Building on 4 Levels

5. Integrated Curriculum of SLDP Offers Holistic,
Systematic Training for School Change
• SLDP provides headmasters with holistic training on
the 4 aspects of school leadership.
• Change management is an arduous and abstract
process; SLDP is guided by an Integrated Curriculum
that outlines systematic, step-wise interventions to
bring long-term change in the school.
• Curriculum facilitates HM growth on the 4
Leadership Levels. Each Leadership Level
corresponds with specific Growth Areas (GA).
• Growth Areas are set to move progressively across 9
Growth Stages (Some may be less than 9)
• Defined Growth Areas and Growth Stages (GS) help
HM to set small, step-wise goals towards school
development; framework makes it easy to track
and measure progress on the goals.
• Each growth stage has specific recommended
actions that HM must complete to move into the
next growth stage.
• Curriculum design allows HMs the flexibility to set
goals according to their current individual and
school needs
• Integrated approach ensures continuous work on
multiple areas of improvement simultaneously.
Growth
Area 1
Growth
Area 2
Growth
Area 3
Growth
Area 4
HM may work on many Growth Areas simultaneously
according to specific needs of his school. He can track
progress on each GA separately, and can be on
different levels of progress on each at any given time.
Growth Stage 5
Growth Stage 2
Growth Stage 4
Growth Stage 6

6. Personal Leadership Lays Foundation for
Systemic Change through Individual Change
Currently As Personal Leader
School environment not favorable for effective student
learning
There is little use of mediums like art, sports, music,
reading to make the learning process enjoyable for
students to accelerate their learning
HM creates a stimulating school environment to improve
learning quality
Focuses intently on creating a culture in which each child
can learn by encouraging use of different innovative
mediums and instructional practices
Little initiative by HM to reflect on ways to grow as a
leader and improve school process
HM takes little time to reflect on his own behavior and
actions that need improvement in order to positively
impact school processes, or to review student progress.
HM reflects on his actions & behaviours , takes initiative
to plan for school improvement
HM takes initiative to reflect upon school processes,
involvement of stakeholders and his own behavior to
discern patterns, outline areas of improvement, plan
HM embroiled in time-consuming administrative work
due to inefficient time management
Inefficient systems and manner of completing
administrative work is a major drain on HM’s time and
energy, taking focus away from his responsibility towards
student learning outcomes
HM systematises administrative work for optimum use of
time
Develops systems for maintaining records, structuring
administrative tasks and delegating responsibilities to
minimize time spent in official data and reporting work by
staff and self.

7. GA1: HM Creates Stimulating Environment
through Assembly, Bal Sabha, Sports, Library
Currently
• Irregular, mechanical morning assembly
No sense of community. Underutilization of
platform to acquaint students with information
beyond curriculum, appreciation, value education
• Neglect of sports , art and music
Lack of medium for interaction with children,
conflict resolution skills including team work, fair
play, communication, and positive attitude.
Failure to foster expression and creativity, building a
joyful school environment
• No encouragement to reading as a regular practice
Overlooking the opportunity to broaden students’
horizons, knowledge and excitement to learn
Growth Stages in SLDP

8. GA2: HM Reflects on Actions to Improve School
Processes, SLO and Stakeholder Engagement
Currently
• HMs unable to set aside time to reflect
No time to think about role, actions and impact of
decisions and programs implemented on
relationships with stakeholders, improvement in
school processes and student learning outcomes
• Inability to reflect on behavior vis-à-vis different
stakeholders
Prevents HM from discerning patterns and areas of
improvement in relationships, affecting capacity to
engage better, give feedback and encourage more
involvement in his initiatives.
• Lack of review
Hinders realistic assessment of how actions are
linked to ultimate vision for the school, loopholes in
implementation and progress towards goals.
Limited input for further planning
Growth Stages in SLDP

9. GA3: HM Systematises Administrative Work to
Increase Involvement in Student Learning
Currently
• HM reduced to administrator-
Majority of HM’s time consumed by administrative
work and submitting reports such as data for Mid-
day Meal, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA, a Govt of
India program) reports, Census, election duty
• Ineffective system for data compilation and
documentation, absence of computerization
Significant increase in time required for completion
of administrative tasks
• Fatigue with paper-work
Unproductive utilization of time drains energy and
resources, takes focus away from core objective of
school- student learning outcomes.
Growth Stages in SLDP

10. A Headmaster in Jhunjhunu addressing the students during Morning Assembly

11. Instructional Leadership Improves Student
Learning Outcomes through Classroom Practices
Currently As Instructional Leader
Classroom environment that fails to foster learning, rote
based learning methods
Use of traditional methods that are unable to engage
children’s interest and do not take individual learning
needs into account; Lesson plans not aligned with
classroom data
HM creates democratic, child centric environment, focus
on Learning
Instructional practices that give space to creativity and
self-constructed learning, cater to different learning levels
in the class; Planning driven by CCE and SLO data to set
further targets
HM fails to role-model best practices
HM spends little time in the classroom to devise and
demonstrate innovative instructional strategies, create
processes for CCE and lesson planning that can be
replicated by teachers in their own classrooms
HM takes initiative to coach Staff
HM uses new instructional methods in his own classroom
to give demo to teachers, initiates data-driven planning
and regular assessments; Coaches teachers through role-
modeling, regular observation and actionable feedback
No platform for peer learning among teachers
Teachers do not get the opportunity to share best
practices or learn from each others’ success in the
classroom, little support for challenges faced in classroom
Learning community among teachers
Regular staff meeting and mock sessions used as platforms
for cross-learning; staff engages in collective problem-
solving for better SLO

12. GA4: HM uses activity based instructional
practice in Maths & Language for classes 1 & 2
Currently
• Traditional, rote-based teaching methods
Slow and ineffective learning as students do not feel
excited to participate in the learning process. No
use of creative Teaching Learning Material (TLM)
• Lessons designed for homogenous group
Do not cater to individual students’ needs as they
are based on the assumption that all students have
a similar pace of learning
• Lessons not aligned to the larger aims of education
Use of teaching methods that ‘give’ or ‘impart’
knowledge and facts to students instead of allowing
the space and opportunity to children to construct
their own learning.
Growth Stages in SLDP

13. GA5: HM establishes SLO based assessment
Currently
• Irregular assessment of learning levels
Teachers not aware of individual students’ learning
level and hence unable to extend necessary
support to optimize learning
• Lack of assessment and review in turn affects SLO
In absence of assessment records and clear
indicators of student learning levels, difficult to set
or achieve realistic targets for SLOs
• Assessment through term end exams daunting for
students and stressful for teachers
Inability to incorporate innovative, task-based
assessment methods and CCE into regular
classroom practice creates term-end stress
Growth Stages in SLDP

14. GA6: HM creates SLO based lesson plans &
review practice
Currently
• Lack of regular planning for classroom
Surface level classroom planning that is not aligned
to the aims of education
• Lesson plans do not reflect the current learning
level of students
Failure to follow data-based planning in accordance
with needs of different learning levels in the class.
Inability to make SMART plans for the classroom
(Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-
bound)
• Lack of SLO based planning and review in turn
affects learning quality
Ineffective teaching that fails to build on previous
learning because of unrealistic estimates of current
learning levels
Growth Stages in SLDP

15. GA7: HM creates conducive democratic, child
centric classroom environment
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Dull and Fearful classroom environment
‘Chalk and Talk’ teaching methods that fail to excite
students, make learning an uphill and stressful task
• Teachers as ‘providers’ of education
Teacher seen as intimidating authority figures who
impart knowledge instead of facilitators that allow
children to construct learning by experiencing
• Limited opportunity for student ownership and
peer learning
Students perceived as ‘receivers’ of knowledge, who
passively participate in prescribed classroom
activities- learning is not a collaborative process

16. GA8: HM Coaches Staff Through Demonstration
Of Own Instructional Practices
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Lack of initiative by HM to coach teachers on
instructional strategies
No platform created by HM to initiate pedagogy
related discussion.
• Inadequate use of opportunities to role model
innovative practices for staff
No demo classes or mock sessions to coach staff on
Activity Based Learning (ABL) strategies or CCE
based lesson plans
• Lack of encouragement for use of resources to
optimize student learning
No systematic plan or concrete effort to encourage
use of resources like library and Maths lab on
regular basis for effective learning

17. GA9: HM Coaches Staff through Regular
Observation, Review & Feedback
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Class observation treated as official task instead of
valuable team practice
HM conducts irregular class observations, mostly for
the purpose of maintaining required logs
• HM is unable to give balanced feedback
HM not equipped to give actionable feedback to
staff to outline concrete steps that can be taken in
the classroom to enhance student learning
• Surface level Feedback that does not take student
data into account
inability to identify unique challenges of individual
classrooms and customize suggestions accordingly

18. GA10: HM Helps Staff in Designing Data-Based
Instructional Practices based on SLO
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Weak link between assessment methods and
teaching objectives
Assessment processes a weak reflection of targeted
learning outcomes
• CCE data remains an official formality, not used as
basis for classroom planning
There is no discussion of SLO data obtained through
CCE and how it can form the foundation for further
classroom planning.
• No processes to review the impact of innovative
classroom strategies on learning outcomes
Lack of clarity on which processes should be
retained and where changes are required for better
SLO

19. GA11: HM Facilitates Creation of Learning
Community among Teachers
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• No cross-learning platform for teachers
Staff meetings neglect discussion of innovative
practices for teachers to benefit from each other’s
expertise
• Underutilization of team resources leading to Uni-
dimensional view of teaching
Individual planning unable to benefit from inputs
and perspectives that team discussions can provide
• Lack of collaborative practice in the team
Teachers focused on individual classrooms instead
of collectively working towards improving quality of
education by collaboratively designing TLMs and
activities.

20. An SLDP Headmaster Conducting a Drama-Based Activity for Classroom Learning

21. Organizational Leadership Ensures Collective
Ownership for School Development
Currently As Organizational Leader
Irregular staff meetings that focus on admin work, no
discussion or planning on SLO
Staff meetings remain an under-utilized platform primarily
focused on administrative work; no focus on team-
building, problem solving and planning
HM facilitates staff meeting for collective problem
solving & planning
Regular staff meetings help with set processes for setting
agenda, prioritizing action on problems that impact
student learning, reviewing progress
Low accountability of teachers in the absence of review
or feedback
No review of individual classroom targets, translating into
low accountability or scope for improvement as there is
no feedback mechanism
Parameters for teacher performance w.r.t student
learning outcomes or SLOs
HM regularly observes classrooms and reviews students
data to identify areas of improvement and give individual
feedback to teachers
No attempt to form a detailed School Development Plan
(SDP)
The SDP remains and official requirement, little
understanding of SDP as a valuable planning tool for
improved performance and tracking
HM facilitates collective visioning & creating of SDP with
staff
HM and staff collaboratively arrive at a vision for their
school, identify areas for school improvement, devise
time-bound action steps and use SDP to review progress

22. GA12: HM Facilitates Staff Meeting for
Collective Problem Solving, Decision Making &
Planning Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Infrequent staff meetings
Significance of staff meetings as a valuable team
process is neglected
• Staff meetings focused on administrative issues
Agenda of meetings limited to official documents
and administrative issues instead of strategies for
improving student learning outcomes
• No meeting records maintained or review of prior
decisions
Issues of discussion and actions decided to be taken
are not reviewed in subsequent meetings, leading
to low implementation and poor tracking

23. GA13: HM Instates Parameters for Performance
for Teachers w.r.t CCE and Instructional
practices Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• No parameters to assess classroom practices
Lack of parameters translates into difficulty in
tracking performance and giving feedback for
improvement
• Low accountability for SLO
Absence of parameters that link teacher
performance to student outcomes leads to low
accountability with regard to instructional practices
as there is no system to bind the two together

24. GA14: HM facilitates Collective Visioning &
creating of School Development Plan With staff
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Absence of ‘problem-solving’ approach to the
school’s issues
HM and staff unable to prioritize and act on issues
that can be solved collaboratively for better SLO,
parents not engaged in the problem-solving process
• SDP lacks collective vision, robustness
SDP is drafted as an official requirement; does not
reflect the collective vision of HM and staff for the
school and tends to touch issues only on the surface
level instead of being based on the school’s actual
needs
• No review or tracking of actions on SDP
NO system to ensure that action is being taken on
items decided on the SDP, review of action not
taken up.

25. An SLDP Headmaster facilitating an activity for Creative Problem Solving during
Staff Meeting (Yellow Hat Technique based on Six Thinking Hats by Edward de

26. Social Leadership Aims for Sustainable Change
by Involving all Stakeholders
Currently As Social Leader
Community not engaged in or aware of school activities
Infrequent interaction with parents, low engagement with
community leading to limited understanding of their
unique characteristics and challenges
HM builds continuous engagement with community
Regular home visits by staff and HM to build relationship
with community, understand their circumstances and seek
support for school activities
Irregular parent meetings with low teacher participation
and parent attendance
Parent meetings held one a term, interaction limited to
official information on awareness programs, etc. Low
teacher buy-in due to perceptions about parents’ lack of
interest in school affairs.
HM facilitates regular parent meetings for all classes
through teachers
Regular parent meetings held to discuss children’s
learning and development with parents. Teachers plan
collaboratively to devise strategies to improve parent
involvement
SMC not functional, no involvement in SDP
SMC exists primarily on paper- no meetings or discussions
to plan SMC involvement in school process, hence
community view not represented in SDP and low support
from parents/community
Regular SMC meetings
SMC meets regularly, involved in drafting of the SDP and
suggests concrete ways to involve parents and community
to support children’s learning. Reviews SDP periodically to
track action on decisions taken, ensure accountability.

27. GA15: HM builds Continuous Engagement with
Parent Community
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Home visits neglected as important strategy to
engage with parents
Student home visits are infrequent, made only in
case of dire need; not included in concrete plan for
parent engagement
• Interaction with parents limited to information
dissemination
Interaction is often one-way, aimed at giving
information about govt schemes, etc. Little attempt
is made to understand issues faced by parents.
• Child learning and development not the focus of
interaction with parents
No systematic attempt to discuss child progress in
detail with parents and jointly arrive at solutions
that would facilitate learning.

28. GA16: HM Facilitates Regular Parent Meetings
for All Classes through Teachers
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• Infrequent parent-teacher meetings (PTM)
No platform for regular discussions with parents
about their children’s progress or functioning of the
school
• Low parent attendance in meetings
Weak relationship between school and parents ,
and lack of awareness about importance of
meetings, fails to draw parents to school
• Limited parent involvement in school events and
issues
Parents not aware of pertinent school issues or
how they can extend support, and hence not
supportive of efforts towards school improvement

29. GA17: HM facilitates Regular SMC meetings with
Members Participation
Growth Stages in SLDP
Currently
• SMC reduced to a formal structure
Infrequent interaction and meetings with SMC;
exists mostly on paper, or for clearing SSA
expenditure which requires their formal approval
• No involvement of SMC in SDP
No discourse with SMC members on school issues to
invite their inputs or ask for support. SDP does not
reflect the perspective of the community and
parents
• No SDP review or sharing of updates with SMC
Absence of review practice further reduces extent
of SMC involvement in school functioning; no
tracking mechanism to ensure accountability to
parent community

30. A rally organized by the HM of a Mumbai school to raise community
awareness about education